Create Hermes API response

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (external side effects), no idempotency, no destruction. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: gate requirements, streaming disabled, chaining support, and that it 'writes redacted request/result/response receipts' — useful side-effect disclosure for an openWorld tool. It doesn't contradict annotations. Misses mention of side effects on external model calls explicitly, though openWorldHint covers this partially.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single dense sentence that packs substantial information: endpoint wrapper type, gate requirements, streaming limitation, chaining support, and receipt writing. It's efficient and front-loads the core purpose. Slightly crammed with policy/gate jargon but each clause carries distinct value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a create-type API wrapper with 8 well-documented params, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety/effects, the description is reasonably complete. It adds gate requirements and side-effect (receipt writing) context beyond structured fields. Could elaborate on what the response object contains or when output schema validates, but with output schema present, the description need not explain return values. Adequate coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each of the 8 parameters having its own description. The tool description adds a bit on top: 'Array content parts are not supported in v0' (in the input schema itself), chaining semantics tied to previous_response_id/conversation. However, most parameter behavior is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting; description adds marginal context like 'store' default enabling later chaining.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Typed OpenAI Responses API POST /v1/responses wrapper' with a clear verb (create) and resource (Hermes API response). It summarizes key features including gate requirements, streaming, chaining, and receipt writing. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling create tools like hermes_api_jobs_create or hermes_kanban_task_create, though the name and RESPECTIVE prefix make the API-response relationship obvious.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly conveys prerequisites ('Requires api_call policy plus live/model/tool/external-side-effect gates') and behavior constraints ('disables streaming in v0', 'supports previous_response_id / conversation chaining'). It communicates the wrapper nature, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this versus alternative creation tools like hermes_api_jobs_create or hermes_api_chat_completions, leaving the choice somewhat to the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.